Tag Archives: armed women

Everyone has flowcharts, companies have them, to perform CPR there is a flowchart, to fix a car there is a flowchart, to diagnose illness or even make financial decisions, there’s a flowchart.

So I decided I needed to make us a little flowchart. It’s another one of those things where I see two things that fit together, well, in my mind.

First off we have this story about a 25 year old woman. She was alone at a bus stop minding her own business in essentially gun free, so crime free Chicago. Or, as some call is Chi-raq.

Residents are praising the 25 year-old woman, with a concealed carry license, who shot and killed a man who was trying to rob her at a bus stop.

Surveillance video shows the woman waiting alone at a bus stop at 103rd and Wallace around 5:45 a.m. Tuesday. Police say a 19-year-old man, in a light colored hoodie, pulled a gun on the woman in an attempt to rob her.

She pulled out her own gun and shot him in the neck.

How’s about that! So that made it all the more interesting when I saw this cartoon on facebook the other day. My buddy Chris puts up great stuff. Then I’ve been watching Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries. It’s set in 1920s Australia, before it was a gun free paradise. Back when women could defend themselves. This was the first one I watched called I believe “Cocaine Blues”. Costumes are beautiful, very elegant, the cars are amazing and the music is swell. The stories are great, when watching the first one it hit me! A flowchart. A simple flowchart to determine if you value women’s lives. To be fair, it can be anyone’s life, but all these stories involve women. Apples to apples don’t you know?

It seems that recently Fredericka Whitfield, a cnn #FakeNews anchor had a segment talking about the school shooting in Florida. The one where the FIB ignored tips and the police never followed through on the myriad of calls they had on Bucket O-Chum. So guess who they had on as a SENIOR analyst? Yep, an FIB dude. Some guy named Tom Fuentes. Tom is everything cnn #FakeNews would want in a senior analyst and everything we would expect in a cnn analyst. Tom thinks female teachers are incapable of carrying concealed.

And then the fact that they have the gun come out when the uniformed police arrive and do what they’re supposed to do, run in, they’re liable to get killed because all the police are going to see is someone waving a gun around and they’re coming into an active shooter situation. So, you know, that adds to the danger.

And then one of the things that people don’t talk about, a lot of these schools — Sandy Hook had an all-female faculty from principal to teachers. And for a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day? You can’t put it in your desk drawer, somebody might steal it and you can’t get to it.

You’re not going to have it in a safe in the principal’s office, you can’t get to it. On your person, hiding it — if you wear a dress, if you wear a skirt, are you going to have to wear a jacket every day with a belt and a holster the way a detective, you know, on duty would do?

It’s not a real practical solution even for a variety of reasons much less being adept is more than just pulling the trigger and making the bullet go down range.

WHITFIELD: Right. And the comfort level, all of that. You know, so many teachers have arms open. They want to hug their kids. I remember that from my school teachers. And certainly that would present a real problem of where exactly to put the gun if it comes to that.

FUENTES: Oh, yes. The kids are going to be “hey, Miss Jones, are you packing?” I mean it’s just not a good situation for it.

WHITFIELD: All right. We’ll have you back. Tom Fuentes — thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Let’s start with that “waving a gun around” part. Apparently since Tom is former FIB, that type of behavior must be de rigueur for the FIB. When they aren’t running guns to Mexico. He must think armed citizens behave that way. We don’t. Tom has seen one too many movies apparently, I don’t care if they were training films telling the FIB how we, the unwashed masses behave. We don’t. We apparently behave far better than the FIB, since I wouldn’t, and don’t personally know concealed carry people that would behave in such a manner.

Shall we move on to the for a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day part?

I know, hard to believe this is a serious question. But like little Julie Bandaras from FOX who apparently doesn’t know anyone who has every bought a gun legally, this idiot doesn’t know any women who are smart enough to be prepared protect themselves.

In December 1972, a month after U.S. President Richard Nixon was reelected in a landslide victory, Kael gave a lecture at the Modern Language Association, during which she said, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them”

Then Fredericka of cnn #FakeNews chimes in,

You know, so many teachers have arms open. They want to hug their kids.

Right Fredericka, they are only capable of giving hugs, cause they’re women, right? If someone came in to hurt them, be it a crazed kid, pedophile, the unibomber, Chucky the killer clown, or muslims #ReligionOfPieces ala Beslan, they would only want to stand there and hug, they wouldn’t want to stop the SOB in it’s tracks right? Cause well, they’re women, and that’s all they can do? I have a hunch that “open arms” excuse is crap because in this age of #MeToo, I really doubt too many teachers feel safe to “hug” their students.

Ahh Tom and Fredericka, both up to cnn #FakeNews highest journalistic standards.

CNN has standards? Who knew!

So let’s talk about those elusive, at least for cnn #FakeNews journalistic standards.

Weinstein is correct when he writes, “The onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed.”

Beauchamp also notes that there’s a big difference between correcting a gun control advocate who’s “actually writing the legislation” versus “a random citizen deciding whether to support a new [assault weapons ban].”

And this is why that open discussion often doesn’t take place.

Because gun ban proponents don’t want to have a discussion. They just want to fling poo. The article continues.

It’s the ignorance of lawmakers, gun control activists, and media commentators that is inexcusable and insulting. Understanding the issue is the bare minimum required of their respective professions. Yet, so many simply refuse to learn the topic.

It’s things like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., saying she opposes “rapid-fire magazines,” whatever those are. It’s things like Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., calling for a ban on “gas-assisted receiver firearms,” which are not real. It’s things like professional cable news commentator Steve Schmidt saying it’s harder to buy cough medicine than an AK-47, which is a damned, stupid lie.

No one would ever accept this level of ignorance and dishonesty in a similarly serious and emotionally charged debate.

No one would cheer if a pundit said it’s easier to get a late-term abortion than Sudafed. His audience would ask to see his homework. No one would shrug it off if a legislator incorrectly referred to a “trimester” as a “semester.”

……

Hell, no one would accept this level of ignorance from a traffic report. If a journalist referred to a pickup truck as an “auto-style speedbox,” he would rightly be laughed off the air.

Apparently neither Tom or Fredericka are aware that many everyday women are far more prepared to defend their animals, themselves and their homes than “progressive” women are to defend their children. It amuses me to think of the potential number of women these two twits may have passed on the street that are carrying concealed weapons.

So what it boils down to, Tom, is you are an ignorant, misogynistic, condescending miserable excuse for a man.

Women are capable of far more than you can even dream of. We cut down trees, we raise animals, children, work in the military, law enforcement, are legislators, take care of people and we can not only carry a firearm, we can deploy it and save the life of someone we care about. A concept foreign to you, the Sheriff of Coward county, and Captain Jan Jordan, who directed deputies to stage and form a perimeter outside Stoneman Douglas High School, rather than immediately entering the building during the mass shooting.

And ya’ll, ya’ll are the “professionals” that you and your ilk want us to leave our safety, and the safety of our families in your hands? Oh HECK no. No thanks you miserable wretch. Bless your heart.

I recently attended a little hour and a half class called “Is it a Mitzvah to be Happy?” It was wonderful, so it got me thinking about happy things, and about decisions to be happy, and just going down that thought path. Then I read a column by a much favored writer, Jack Engelhard, Beware a country that loses its sense of humor. So, I’m not always very humorous, sarcasm can sometimes be a second language, but I thought I’d take a stab at some humor. So as I understand it, first we need a “set up” for context.

Guns can be dangerous, very dangerous. Probably much too dangerous for women to handle. They are more likely to have them taken away and used on them, or at least so warbles the likes of Shannon T Watts.

For sheer craziness, I offer this. Shannon T Watts and her band of merry loonies have decided to descend on poor Douglass Park neighborhood with a high crime rate. Their goal is to create more disarmed victims. If only Illinois had strict gun control I’m sure all would be well.

Little Shannon T Watts does get a bit mixed up at all the times. Immediately after the tragedy in Charlottesville when the lady was killed by a car, Shannon leapt into action!! She called for stricter control of drivers licensing, more car regulation, nothing that can go over 25 mph (except her car of course which will be unregulated) smaller cars, made of used Walmart bags. Naw, just kidding, she blamed it on guns and called for more gun control. In a unrelated story, I think Shannon T Watts needs to have her drivers license and car confiscated immediately, and I mean right now! The unhinged dingbat can’t tell a gun from a deadly assault car! She’s not safe.

But you know, it’s really only some people that should be left defenseless, like poor people. They should be left defenseless, or at least until men with guns called police can come and help them. If there’s a flood going on, then it could get a bit dicey. But if you’re important, like Shannon T Watts, or Mickey Bloomers, or you’re wearing a pink knitted hat that makes you important, you can see so clearly, you simply do not need a gun! No, certainly not! You just hire armed guards for your pink hatted loon brigade.

Leftist agitators like Linda Sarsour and Shannon Watts hiring armed protection while demanding the rest of us turn in our guns into government bureaucrats is nothing new. Watts does the same every time she shows up to protest at the NRA annual meeting. Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who pays Watts millions to take away the Second Amendment rights of everyday Americans, doesn’t go anywhere without his security detail.

But, what I say, just what if, they are wrong? What if women really are smart? What if we really can chew bubble gum and shoot at the same time?

So for example, I present this story of a poor miscreant Ronald J. Kelly who decided to rob a thrift store with a shotgun. It was taken away from him by three thrift store employees including a woman, and she proceeded to beat him severely about the head with it. Kid you not. She’s the one that grabbed the gun, the two male co-workers saw what was going on and came and helped her.

The resident initially called 911 to report a man was trying to break into her home. She yelled at him, secured her doors and hid her children upstairs, according to a Facebook post from the sheriff’s office.

The woman then armed herself with a handgun.

He then broke in, she shot him. One shot, one hit. Moral of the story, don’t break into houses, don’t break into houses with a BAC of .250, don’t break into houses that don’t belong to Shannon T Watts and Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emmanuel and such. For some reason Micky B. and Shannon T Watts don’t like this woman? They think she should have submitted helplessly to the drunk man that broke into the home of her and her children. Huh.

From the don’t mess with women, and really don’t mess with old women, and really really don’t mess with old armed women file, this one,

The would-be robber reportedly grabbed the woman’s purse while it rested on her shoulder, at which point, the victim brandished a weapon she had stored inside.

According to the report, the assailant then fled west through the parking lot of the grocery store and behind Belk.

But this sort of thing only happens in the United States, right? Only in the US are women in danger from this “wild west” atmosphere where men walk around with guns and women are forced to cower helplessly! Unless the women are armed and they shoot the thug.

So let’s take a look at Cherán in Mexico. Actually, this whole article is fascinating, with bits like

More than 180,000 people have been killed in Mexico since then-President Felipe Calderon sent the army to fight organized crime groups in his native state of Michoacan in 2006. But one small town in that state says it hasn’t had a homicide since 2011 because its residents — led by women — took up arms to kick out groups who had expanded from drug trafficking into illegal logging. While overall in Michoacán, federal authorities say 614 people have been killed this year, a 16 percent increase from 2016, the people of Cherán say they’ve become immune to serious crime. They expelled the politicians and local police, and community members now patrol the area wearing uniforms emblazoned with the slogan “For Justice, Security and the Restoration of Our Territory.”

The bold bits I put in bold. This article really is quite amazing.

Speaking on the “Wild West”. Have you ever heard of Annie Oakley? Annie was amazing, born into poor financial circumstances, and then her family made destitute with the death of her father. She rose above those circumstances due to her ability to shoot, and shoot very well indeed. Initially she used her skills to feed the family, by providing them food and then selling her game to the shopkeepers in town and also some restaurants. She met her future husband, Frank Butler by beating him in a shooting competition. Who needs match.com, right? Annie had some strong views on women, firearms and their capabilities.

Oakley promoted the service of women in combat operations for the United States armed forces. She wrote a letter to President William McKinley on April 5, 1898, “offering the government the services of a company of 50 ‘lady sharpshooters’ who would provide their own arms and ammunition should the U.S. go to war with Spain.”

Throughout her career, it is believed that Oakley taught upwards of 15,000 women how to use a gun. Oakley believed strongly that it was crucial for women to learn how to use a gun, as not only a form of physical and mental exercise, but also to defend themselves. She said: “I would like to see every woman know how to handle guns as naturally as they know how to handle babies.”

As a side note here, Annie also had trouble with the cnn, mslsd and mainstream media of the day.

Annie Oakley spent much of the next six years winning 54 of 55 libel lawsuits against newspapers. She collected less in judgments than the total of her legal expenses, but she felt that a restored reputation justified the loss of time and money.

Here’s a short film clip, shot in 1894 in Thomas Edison’s studio, of Oakley’s marksmanship: http://bit.ly/2uShYI3

So women can be strong, brave and resourceful. So speaking of strong, resourceful and brave, let me share with you one of my people I regularly check on Twitter. It’s the Daily Freier.

Some of My Best Friends are Freiers. providing fact-based news from Tel Aviv, Israel since 2014. This is like satire and stuff.

Think of freier as meaning fool. The Daily Freier has run a short series that just makes me smile. It’s called Linda Sarsour: Time Traveler. They have done two episodes, so far Linda Sarsour: Time Traveler and Linda Sarsour: Time Traveler. The Golda Meir Episode. I had a great idea for a third episode involving one of my personal heroines, Ruth Moritz. Happily that has not happened, yet. Why do I say yet? Because Ladies and Gentleman, I, your humble lowly scribe, received permission from The Daily Freier to use their format and idea to write a Linda Sarsour: Time Traveler. The Ruth Moritz Episode! Yeah, I’m kind of excited, so here we go.

Linda Sarsour: Time Traveler. The Ruth Moritz Episode

Linda Sarsour

SCENE: Somewhere in the top of a minaret in Yafo the 10th of June, 1948. Two young women clutching K-98 Mausers regard the approaching Arab mob with an air of sad resolve. Suddenly a woman wearing a Pepto-Bismol pink hijab over what appears to be a culturally appropriated Navajo blanket blazer materializes, Star Trek Style.

Woman in hijab: Are you Ruth Moritz, the Zionist?

The smaller of the two women, takes a firm grip on her rifle and regards the pasty faced woman in a mildly amused fashion.

Ruth: I am, and this is my friend Miriam Aharoni.

Miriam spares a brief glance from the rapidly approaching Arab mob to stare at the gaudy outfit, sniffs and returns to lining up her rifle sights on the mob.

Linda: My name is Linda Sarsour, and I have traveled from the future to inform you two that you are not feminists.

Ruth: Is that right? Well Linda, I think we have a different definition of “feminism” than you and your friends do. You see, we know women are smart enough, capable enough and brave enough to help in the fight to regain our homeland after a few thousand years. We know we can not only chew gum, talk and shoot but unlike what you, your friends and the mainstream media proclaim, we can do it all at the same time.

Miriam loudly pops a bubble, takes aim and fires, a loud yelp is heard from the coming hoard.

Linda screeches indignantly.

Linda: OH.MY.GOSH! You SHOT him! You just SHOT him!

Linda angrily addresses Ruth.

Linda: You are so evil! Someone in your command just used a gun and KILLED someone. I don’t have friends like THAT. I have nice friends! I have famous friends! One of my best friends is Rasmea Odeh. She is SO cool, she would never use one of those evil rifles to kill someone!

Ruth venomously snarls at Linda.

Ruth: Your “friend” helped set a bomb in a crowded supermarket that killed two students and injured nine others. They were civilians, there was no battle going on, you attacked innocents.

The sound of another bubble popping is heard, followed by the crack of a rifle shot and another yelp.

Miriam: That’s it Ruth, I’m out of ammunition.

Ruth: I’ve got a couple left, you keep an eye on Gabby there.

Ruth coolly levels her rifle and takes aim at the two she guesses to be leaders of the mob and drops them both in rapid succession.

Another screech is heard from Linda.

Linda: OH.MY.GOSH!! I am feeling SO microaggressed right now! I need my safe space! Where is my safe space?

Ruth: Well, Linda, there aren’t a whole lot of safe spaces to be had around here. Miriam, what do you think? We could throw her body down the stairs, that would slow their entry up here a bit.

Miriam sizes Linda up.

Linda: Oh my gosh! Look at the time! I have so much to do! I’ve got my Hurricane relief fund to check on. I told people the fund was to help victims of Hurricane Harvey, but it’s really going to help political committees and community organizing after the flood waters recede. It worked really well with my scam on the “Repair the Jewish Cemetery” gig. Of course if people like Israellycool or The Daily Freier find out about it they’ll blab it to everyone. I hate that! Then TDF will make fun of me. I really hate those people!

The state of Virginia has an interesting piece of legislation in play right now. HB 1852 allows someone with protective orders to carry a concealed handgun after they apply for a permit. Normally you cannot carry a gun until after you have received your permission slip, and that can take up to 45 days. Days you may, or may not have. The emergency permit is good for 45 days, and you can only utilize the “by-pass” if you have applied for a permit.

The bill passed the Senate by a 27-13 vote. It had already been approval by the House of Delegates.

“Governor” McAuliffe had a chance to help domestic abuse victims with similar legislation last year, but he chose to side with the abusers and vetoed it. His aide says he plans to again prevent victims from being able to obtain life saving tools in an emergency situation this year. Of course McAuliffe is not the only one siding with abusers. A confused Demoncrat named Favola also took a very firm stand against women:

“We already have a victim who’s vulnerable and very concerned and anxious, and we’re going to allow this person to bypass whatever requirements we might have for concealed handgun permits – one of which is training – to go ahead and get the gun,” she said.

“We should base public policy on evidence-based research. Folks who have studied this issue, folks who have advocated for the rights of women, folks who have spent many years evaluating domestic violence situations tell us that it is not wise to interject more firearms into a situation that is already volatile,” Favola added. “In fact, when a firearm exists in a situation of domestic violence, it’s actually the woman who is five times more likely to die.”

I would say probably not if the gun is in HER hand. So this Favola thing thinks it’s far better to allow the victims to remain vulnerable, anxious and concerned. I guess no one pointed out to her there was nothing to prevent the woman from getting her gun and taking it and getting training if she needed it, or wanted more. I rather suspect if a woman feels the need to get a gun to protect herself, she will want to be able to use it effectively. But that thought process may be too deep or McAuliffe and Favola. But they probably have taxpayer funded protection don’t they? They’ve never known that fear, so it doesn’t exist does it?

Prohibit acts of violence, force, or threat or criminal offenses that may result in injury to person or property.

Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner as the judge deems necessary for the health and safety of the Petitioner.

Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner’s family or household members as the judge deems necessary for their health and safety.

Order any other conditions the judge may deem necessary to prevent acts of violence, force, or threat, criminal offenses resulting in injury to person or property, or communication or other contact of any kind by the respondent.

And what does one have to do to obtain such a magical piece of paper?

Several forms must be completed to obtain a preliminary protective order. These forms are available at the civil clerk’s office, and can be completed at the court or taken home to complete.

You must complete the forms on your own, and you must be present to file them.

When all of the appropriate forms have been completed, the clerk will present the petition to a judge. They will review the forms and make a determination whether to issue the preliminary protective order or not. If approved, a court date will be set within 15 days and notice of the hearing will be served on the respondent.

Fifteen days, wow. But you can get an emergency order. They also helpfully tell you what to do in the event that the order is violated:

You should immediately call 911 and tell them you have a protective order and the respondent is violating it. You may also file violation charges with the magistrate.

I guess they mean if you live, then I guess you wait for the police to show up with their guns to save you.

This restraining order thing is interesting.

The Independent Women’s Forum points out how restraining orders can become a tool in a woman’s bag of dirty tricks. By that I mean that some women get a restraining order to gain the upper hand in a contentious divorce. The man gets booted out of the house, possibly loses unfettered access to his children, and it may give her a leg up in court for division of property. It can also cost an innocent man his Second Amendment rights. TV host and liberal wing-nut David Letterman once had a restraining order issued against him. The judge didn’t really think wing-nut had done anything, but the woman had filled out the paperwork correctly.

Security specialist Gavin de Becker says in his book The Gift of Fear restraining orders are “homework assignments police give to women to prove they’re really committed to getting away from their pursuers”, they “clearly serve police and prosecutors”, but “they do not always serve victims”.

How effective are restraining orders? From Psychology Today I learned they work about half the time. They work for people that tend to follow the rules. If the guy is saying “If I can’t have you no one will” he quite possibly will not care one whit about that piece of paper. The victim may or may not be consistent in reporting violations, the police may or may not be consistent in their approach to reported violations. If the victims has been inconsistent in reporting, they will probably be more inconsistent in their response.

The rest I’m going to pretty much quote:

Problem Four: Sometimes the presence of a Temporary Restraining Order makes what was a dormant situation instantly worse. Gavin de Becker says “Sometimes when we engage we enrage.” This means that if the subject has not bothered the victim prior to this point, getting him served in court with a civil stay-away order may suddenly give him a reason to become a never-ending irritant to the victim. “You’re giving me a restraining order? I’ll give you a reason to give me a restraining order!” and then the games begin.

Problem Five: Are the police, the domestic violence advocates, and the victim using a Temporary Restraining Order as the primary placating tool/security blanket, when a better plan exists? Sometimes it makes good safety sense for the victim to move away. When I was a dv investigator, we often told victims to get a TRO, as part of our usual attempts at due diligence and giving them all of their options. In retrospect, it often made the situation worse and created a false sense of security that once the order was served, the police were now somehow waiting right around the corner to help.

Some domestic violence victims participate in their own murders by not reading the warning signs, not trusting their intuition, and over-relying on the ever-flawed criminal justice system for help. The life they have to protect is their own.

Move away? Move away? Someone who is already a victim has to move away from job, family, friends and whatever support system they have? So reality strikes, the restraining order is every bit as strong as, well, a piece of paper.

Another state has a similar bill going through their legislature. Indiana has House Bill 1071 which would allow those who have been granted a protective order to use that order to obtain a temporary permit to carry a gun. Those wishing to use the order as a carrying permit must be 21 years old and must follow all regulations to receive an actual concealed carry permit.

A firearms instructor and attorney, Guy Relford testified that some of the women he has trained have told him that their attackers went away when they saw the gun, they didn’t have to shoot, they went away. Apparently allowing women the means to defend themselves did not cause blood to run in the streets. Then Demoncrat Summers rode in on her unicorn and stated:

“I think that your energies should be in strengthening up that protective order, doing some other things in a domestic violence situation instead of giving a scared to death woman a gun,” Summers said.

Summers did not dismount her unicorn long enough to specify just HOW she could strengthen a protective order enough that a determined abuser wouldn’t blow that off as well. But, well, hey, she’s a Demoncrat.

So Governor McAuliffe has little regard for the lives of at risk women it seems to me. It appears he is much more concerned about protecting abusers as he is also much more concerned about New York than he is Virginia. So McAuliffe with the help of other Demoncrats is starting a “Binder full of women”, much like Governor Chris Christie has a binder of women. Women like Carol Browne who died due to New Jersey gun laws. A binder of victims who were denied the emergency equipment that could have saved their lives. Or like Castle Rock vs. Gonzalesthe children who are victims when the magical restraining order fails.

Perhaps McAuliffe, various Demoncrats and Governor Christie think domestic violence is funny, that’s it’s all like “Goodbye Earl”. But then, they have taxpayer funded security don’t they? Right, I forgot, the fear and danger isn’t real.